New gTLD Program
Community Priority Evaluation Report
Report Date: 10 September 2014
Application ID:
Applied-for String:
Applicant Name:

1-1675-51302
ART
EFLUX.ART, LLC

Overall Community Priority Evaluation Summary
Community Priority Evaluation Result

Did Not Prevail

Thank you for your participation in the New gTLD Program. After careful consideration and extensive
review of the information provided in your application, including documents of support, the Community
Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the requirements specified in the
Applicant Guidebook. Your application did not prevail in Community Priority Evaluation.
Your application may still resolve string contention through the other methods as described in Module 4 of
the Applicant Guidebook.
Panel Summary
Overall Scoring

7 Point(s)Criteria#1: Community Establishment#2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community#3: Registration Policies#4: Community Endorsement
Total

Earned03137

Achievable
4
4
4
4
16

Minimum Required Total Score to Pass: 14

Criterion #1: Community Establishment
1-A Delineation

0/4 Point(s)0/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined by the application did
not meet the criterion for Delineation as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria)of the Applicant Guidebook, as the community defined in the application does not demonstrate sufficientdelineation, organization, or pre-existence. The application received a score of 0 out of 2 points undercriterion 1-A: Delineation.
Delineation
According to the Applicant Guidebook, two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements fordelineation: there must be “a clear and straight-forward membership definition” and there must be “anPage 1

awareness and recognition of a community among its members.” The AGB additionally states that acommunity as defined in the application should show “more of cohesion than a mere commonality ofinterest.”
The community is defined in the application (“.ART”) as follows:
Both the production and the study of art have been transformed by the rise of the Internet, which
has exponentially expanded access to the media, analysis, audiences, and materials necessary for
artists, art galleries, collectors, museums, and scholars… This expanded access now allows us tounderstand the art community in its broadest sense, and e-flux consequently intends to cater toindividuals, organizations and companies who are actively involved, on a professional and semiprofessional level, with an art community that includes architecture, dance, sculpture, music,
painting, poetry, film, photography and comics. Any individual, organization or company that
already belongs to one of the art community categories that have been established by e-flux, referred
to in our response to Question 20 (b) below, is considered a member of the art community.
This community definition does not delineate a clear and straightforward membership as the AGB requires.
Membership in the community as defined by the applicant is unverifiable, given the absence of a requirement
for any formal relationship between individuals and membership organizations, associations, or other such
structures by which membership could be clearly demonstrated. Indeed, the applicant “understand[s] the art
community in its broadest sense” (emphasis added) and acknowledges “the diverse nature of what is considered‘art’” and “the subjective affiliations with this term are manifold.” The AGB nevertheless requires a clear
definition of membership regardless of the diffuse nature inherent in a given string. Ultimately, themembership as defined in the application is overly dispersed and unbound. The applicant includes a broad
range of individuals and entities involved in a wide array of both professional and semi-professional artsrelated activities globally in the proposed community. The proposed community, therefore, lacks the clarityand delineation required of a community under the AGB.
In addition, according to the AGB, “community” implies “more of cohesion than a mere commonality ofinterest” and there should be “an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.” Thecommunity as defined in the application does not demonstrate an awareness and recognition among its
members. Based on the community definition provided in the application materials, the community may
include a Japanese poet, a German architect, and a network of Brazilian comic book illustrators. Based on the
Panel’s research and materials provided in the application, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that thedisperse membership as defined in the application would cohere as a clearly delineated community (asrequired by the AGB), even if many of the disparate entities defined share a commonality of interest in thearts.
The application materials and the endorsing organizations, to which the applicant refers throughout theapplication and whose letters of support the Panel has reviewed, indicate that there is a commonality ofinterest among some, but not all, of the entities and individuals defined by the application as members of the
proposed community. However, the application materials and further research provide no substantive
evidence of what the AGB calls “cohesion” – that is, that the various members of the community as definedby the application are “united or form a whole” (Oxford Dictionaries).
For example, the Architects’ Council of Europe (ACE) is a federation of organizations in Europe devoted toadvancing architectural best practices and the interests of their member architects. ACE falls within one of
the articulated parts of the proposed community. Based on Panel’s review, however, ACE does not show anawareness or recognition of the numerous other parts of the proposed community1, whether by way ofinteraction or an explicit statement of cohesion. This is the case with most other such organizations
researched, including the majority of organizations from which the applicant has submitted letters of support.
1 The Panel acknowledges that an exhaustive review of all proposed community member organizations is not possible

and has used ACE as a representative example of the review carried out to determine awareness and recognition of the
proposed community.

Page 2

These endorsing entities have neither mentioned their perception of cohesion with other disparate groups
nor demonstrated it through records of their activities or objectives.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not satisfy either of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for delineation.
Organization
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for organization: there must be at least one entity
mainly dedicated to the community, and there must be documented evidence of community activities.
The community as defined in the application does not have at least one entity mainly dedicated to thecommunity as defined by the applicant. Research showed that existing entities do not represent a majority of
the community as defined by the applicant, as they are limited in geographic scope or only represent parts ofthe community. The application itself acknowledges the lack of an entity representing the community that it
defines. According to the application:
Given the diverse nature of what is considered “art,” and given the fact that the subjective
affiliations with this term are manifold, there is no national or international group or organizationthat caters for the needs and interests of the members of the art community. For this reason, as isevidenced by the many letters of endorsement and support received by the Applicant, there is a clear
need and demand from the art community to have a TLD that is specifically destined for andoperated by members of the art community.
According to the AGB, "organized" implies that there is at least one entity mainly dedicated to thecommunity, with documented evidence of community activities.” As described above, there is no entity(ies)that represents all of the types of “art” member categories outlined by the applicant. The application’s intent(expressed above) is to use the gTLD to foster such organization, but this does not meet the AGB’s
requirement that the defined community currently be organized. Moreover, an “organized” community,
according to the AGB, is one that is represented by at least one entity that encompasses the entire
community as defined by the applicant. There should, therefore, be at least one entity that encompasses andorganizes “individuals, organizations and companies who are actively involved, on a professional and semiprofessional level, with an art community that includes architecture, dance, sculpture, music, painting, poetry,film, photography and comics.” Based on information provided in the application materials and the Panel’s
research, there is no entity that organizes the community defined in the application, in all the breadth ofcategories explicitly defined.
Regarding the second requirement for organization – documented evidence of community activities – thePanel has concluded that no such evidence can exist because there is no entity that is mainly dedicated to thecommunity as defined in the application.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not satisfy either of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for organization.
Pre-existence
To fulfill the requirements for pre-existence, the community must have been active prior to September 2007
(when the new gTLD policy recommendations were completed).
The community as defined in the application was not active prior to September 2007. According to section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook the CPE process is conceived to
identify qualified community-based applications, while preventing both “false positives” (awarding undue
priority to an application that refers to a “community” construed merely to a obtain a sought-after genericword as a gTLD string) and “false negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified community application).
The Panel determined that this application refers to a “community” construed to obtain a sought-aftergeneric word as a gTLD string, and that the application is attempting to organize the various groups

Page 3

mentioned in the documentation through a gTLD. The proposed community therefore could not have been
active prior to the above date (although its constituent parts were active).
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not fulfill the requirements forpre-existence.
1-B Extension
0/2 Point(s)The Panel determined that the community as identified in the application did not meet the criterion for
Extension specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as
the application did not fulfill the requirements for size, nor demonstrate longevity for the community. The
application received a score of 0 out of 2 points under criterion 1-B: Extension.
Size
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for size: the community must be of considerable size
and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application is of considerable size. The community for .ART as defined in
the application is large both in terms of geographical reach and number of members. According to theapplicant:e-flux consequently intends to cater to individuals, organizations and companies who are actively
involved, on a professional and semi-professional level, with an art community that includes
architecture, dance, sculpture, music, painting, poetry, film, photography and comics. Any individual,organization or company that already belongs to one of the art community categories that have been
established by e-flux, referred to … below, is considered a member of the art community.
Museums such as: The Museum of Modern Art, New York; The Guggenheim, New York;...
- Biennials such as: Sao Paulo Biennial; Istanbul Biennial…
- Art fairs such as: Art Basel, Frieze Art Fair (London)…
- Magazines such as: Artforum, Parkett, Frieze…
- Art book publishers and distributors such as: Phaidon, Great Britain…
However, as previously stated, the community as defined in the application does not have awareness andrecognition among its members. Failing such qualities, the community cannot be said to have the “cohesion”
required by the AGB.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application only satisfies one of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for size.
Longevity
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for longevity: the community must demonstrate
longevity and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application does not demonstrate longevity. According to section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook the CPE process is conceived to
identify qualified community-based applications, while preventing both “false positives” (awarding undue
priority to an application that refers to a “community” construed merely to a obtain a sought-after genericword as a gTLD string) and “false negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified community application).
The Panel determined that this application refers to a proposed community construed to obtain a soughtafter generic word as a gTLD, and that the applicant is attempting to organize the various groups mentioned
in the documentation through a gTLD. Therefore, the Panel has determined that the transient nature of thispurpose, as well as the proposed community’s lack of cohesion, does not meet the requirements for receiving
credit for longevity.

Page 4

Additionally, as previously stated, the community as defined in the application does not have awareness andrecognition among its members. As such, the proposed community cannot demonstrate longevity.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not satisfy either of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for longevity.
Criterion #2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community
2-A Nexus

3/4 Point(s)2/3 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application partially met the criterion for Nexus as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook. The string identifies the name of thecommunity, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community. The application received a score of 2out of 3 points under criterion 2-A: Nexus.
To receive the maximum score for Nexus, the applied-for string must match the name of the community or
be a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community name. To receive a partial score for Nexus,
the applied-for string must identify the community. “Identify” means that the applied-for string closely
describes the community or the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond thecommunity.
The applied-for string (.ART) identifies the name of the proposed community but does not match it. The
string closely describes the community and does not over-reach substantially, as the general public willassociate the string with the community as defined by the applicant. The community encompasses individuals
and institutions involved in the creation and promotion of art and artistic works. This community definitionis broad and encompasses all areas that are typically considered as art2. However, given the subjective natureand meaning of what constitutes art, the general public may not necessarily associate all of the members ofthe defined community with the string. Hence, the string cannot be seen as a “match” for the definedcommunity, as required by the AGB. Partial credit is therefore given for Nexus.
The Panel determined that the applied-for string identifies the name of the community as defined in theapplication. It therefore partially meets the requirements for Nexus.

1/1 Point(s)2-B Uniqueness

The Panel determined that the application met the criterion for Uniqueness as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as the string has no other significant
meaning beyond identifying the community described in the application. The application received amaximum score of 1 point under criterion 2-B: Uniqueness.
To fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness, the string .ART must have no other significant meaning beyond
identifying the community described in the application. The community described encompasses individuals
and institutions involved in the creation and promotion of art and artistic works, which the Panel has
determined would be understood by the general public as constituting an art community3. The Paneldetermined that the applied-for string fulfills the requirements for Uniqueness.

2 According to Oxford Dictionaries, “art” refers to the expression of human creativity, typically through visual forms

such as painting and sculpture, but also including music, dance, and others described in the application. While other usesof the word “art” exists, they are not as common and are typically used in construction with other words or phrases,
such as “liberal arts” or “the art of communication.” There are no other communities more commonly referred to by theword “art” than to the community of those who produce it, i.e. the individuals included in the applicant’s definedcommunity.
3

Ibid.

Page 5

Criterion #3: Registration Policies
3-A Eligibility

1/4 Point(s)1/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application met the criterion for Eligibility as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as eligibility is restricted tocommunity members. The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-A: Eligibility.
To fulfill the requirements for Eligibility, the registration policies must restrict the eligibility of prospective
registrants to community members. The application demonstrates adherence to this requirement by
restricting eligibility to art-related institutions and entities, and professionals or semi-professional members of
the art community, with a comprehensive verification system outlined to confirm affiliation with thecommunity, etc. (Comprehensive details are provided in Section 20e of the applicant documentation). The
Panel determined that the application satisfies the condition to fulfill the requirements for Eligibility.

0/1 Point(s)3-B Name Selection

The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Name Selection as specified in
section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as name selection rules
are not consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for TLD. The application
received a score of 0 out of 1 point under criterion 3-B: Name Selection.
To fulfill the requirements for Name Selection, the registration policies for name selection for registrants
must be consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. The application
does not demonstrate adherence to this requirement, as it does not outline comprehensive name selection
rules. (Please refer to Section 20e of the applicant documentation). The Panel determined that the application
did not satisfy the condition to fulfill the requirements for Name Selection.

0/1 Point(s)3-C Content and Use

The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Content and Use as specified in
section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as the rules for content
and use are not consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for TLD. The
application received a score of 0 out of 1 point under criterion 3-C: Content and Use.
To fulfill the requirements for Content and Use, the registration policies must include rules for content anduse for registrants that are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for
gTLD. The application did not demonstrate adherence to this requirement, as it does not outline
comprehensive rules for content and use, apart from barring the display of abusive content on a website.
(Please refer to Section 20e of the applicant documentation). The Panel determined that the application did
not satisfy the condition to fulfill the requirements for Content and Use.

0/1 Point(s)3-D Enforcement

The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Enforcement as specified in section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as the application did notprovide specific enforcement measures or appropriate appeal mechanisms. The application received a scoreof 0 out of 1 point under criterion 3-D: Enforcement.
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement: the registration policies must
include specific enforcement measures constituting a coherent set, and there must be appropriate appeals
mechanisms. The applicant did not outline policies that include specific enforcement measures constituting a
coherent set. The application documentation states that the applicant reserves the right to delete content, or
temporarily or permanently suspend the registration of domain names, but does not outline specific
enforcement processes. However, the applicant mentions a general appeals process that allows a registrant tochallenge a decision from the applicant to revoke or suspend the registration of a domain name. (Please refer

Page 6

to Section 20e of the applicant documentation). The Panel determined that the application did not satisfy oneof the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement.
Criterion #4: Community Endorsement
4-A Support

3/4 Point(s)1/2 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application partially met the criterion for Support specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as there was documented support
from at least one group with relevance. The application received a score of 1 out of 2 points under criterion
4-A: Support.
To receive the maximum score for Support, the applicant is, or has documented support from, therecognized community institution(s)/member organization(s), or has otherwise documented authority torepresent the community. “Recognized” means the institution(s)/organization(s) that, through membershipor otherwise, are clearly recognized by the community members as representative of the community. To
receive a partial score for Support, the applicant must have documented support from at least one group with
relevance. “Relevance” refers to the communities explicitly and implicitly addressed.
The Panel determined that the applicant was not the recognized community institution(s)/member
organization(s), nor did it have documented authority to represent the community as defined by theapplicant, or documented support from the recognized community institution(s)/member organization(s).
Numerous letters of support were received from a variety of entities. The panel determined that the applicant
possesses documented support from multiple groups with relevance, and this documentation contained a
description of the process and rationale used in arriving at the expression of support. While the applicant had
support from more than one group with relevance, these groups do not constitute support from the majorityof the recognized institutions that represent the community, as they are limited in geographic or thematic
scope and do not represent the entire community as defined by the applicant. The Community Priority
Evaluation Panel determined that the applicant partially satisfies the requirements for Support.

2/2 Point(s)4-B Opposition

The Panel determined that the application met the criterion for Opposition specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as the application did not receive any
relevant opposition. The application received the maximum score of 2 points under criterion 4-B:
Opposition.
To receive the maximum score for Opposition, the application must not have received any opposition of
relevance. To receive a partial score for Opposition, the application must have received opposition from, at
most, one group of non-negligible size.
The application received letters of opposition, which were determined to not be relevant, as they were either
from individuals or groups of negligible size, or were from entities/communities that do not have anassociation to the applied for string. The Community Priority Evaluation Panel determined that the applicant
satisfies the requirements for Opposition.

Disclaimer: Please note that these Community Priority Evaluation results do not necessarily determine thefinal result of the application. In limited cases the results might be subject to change. These results do notconstitute a waiver or amendment of any provision of the Applicant Guidebook or the Registry Agreement.
For updated application status and complete details on the program, please refer to the Applicant Guidebook
and the ICANN New gTLDs microsite at <newgtlds.icann.org>.

Page 7